Husband Incurred Attorney Fees Over And Above The Trial Court’s Previous Awards To Him Totaling $150,000 By Overlitigating The Case, And Failed To Provide The Trial Court With Reasonable Grounds For Appeal.
Husband litigated a claim that his siblings and family-owned business entities owed him $4 million through the proceeding for dissolution of his marriage. According to a transmutation agreement signed by husband on the couple’s wedding day, the $4 million was a community asset. On the final day of trial, husband and wife each moved for Family Code section 2030 needs-based attorney fees to be paid by siblings/entities. The trial court had previously awarded husband a total of $150,000 in fees, but he sought another $50,000 for fees incurred over and above the $150,000. Likewise, wife had previously been awarded a total of $125,000 in fees, but sought another $293,934.80 for incurred fees. Additionally, husband and wife each sought fees to pursue appeals of the trial court’s ruling - $30,000 and $100,000 respectively. The trial court denied their requests – finding each had failed to show their requests for recovery of incurred fees was reasonable. Rather, the trial court found that the fees it had already awarded them were sufficient to fairly litigate the claim for the $4 million, but that husband and wife had overlitigated the case. As to the appellate fees, the trial court found each spouse had failed to show reasonable grounds for appeal. Alternatively, the trial court also found that the indemnity provision in husband’s contract with siblings/entities, wherein husband’s agreement to indemnify siblings/entities included “all costs incurred and/or related to this action,” barred husband/wife from seeking the requested fees. Husband appealed in Marriage of Nakamoto and Hsu, Case No. G059108 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2022) (unpublished). Wife did not.
The 4/3 DCA affirmed. In discussing section 2030 and its purpose, the panel cited Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 251-252 (2009). “[T]he purpose of section 2030 is not the redistribution of money from the greater income party to the lesser income party. Its purpose is parity: a fair hearing with two sides equally represented. The idea is that both sides should have the opportunity to retain counsel, not just . . . the party with greater financial strength.” Here, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that husband had been awarded fees sufficient to fairly litigate the case, and had incurred additional fees by overlitigating the case. As such, the trial court’s denial of husband’s request to recover $50,000 in incurred fees was not arbitrary or capricious. As to the trial court’s denial of appellate fees, the 4/3DCA found no abuse of discretion. Husband’s grounds for appeal were conclusory and ignored evidence not favorable to his claims. Finally, it was unnecessary for the panel to address the trial court’s alternative indemnity ruling based on its analysis of the trial court’s fee ruling.
BLOG UPDATE: We can now report that this opinion was certified for publication on June 2, 2022.
Comments